Petty offences should not be sent to jury trial, says senior judge

DEFENDANTS should not be allowed to choose a jury trial in some petty crime cases, a senior judge has said.

In a speech at Pembroke College, Oxford, Lady Justice Hallett, who sits on the Court of Appeal, said that a full jury trial could cost £20,000 for defendants accused of offences such as stealing sweets from a supermarket.

She said the Government should “remove the right to elect trial by jury in cases that simply do not warrant it”.

The most serious offences are indictable, meaning they have to be tried in a crown court; summary offences are almost always tried in a magistrates’

‘If you are a prolific shoplifter, should you have the right to demand jury trial at a cost of approximately £20,000?’

court. In the middle are “either way” offences that can be tried in either court depending on seriousness.

For “either way” offences, which include theft, the defendant has the right to elect to go to crown court. Last year 1,637 defendants chose to be tried by a jury in a crown court, 1.7 per cent of 98,668 cases heard in crown courts.

If each case cost around £20,000, the total expense would be £32.7million.

Crown courts have the power to impose tougher sentences but they have a lower conviction rate. In addition, the time taken for a case to get to crown court allows a defendant to gather more evidence and prepare their case.

In 2009 a Birmingham man was tried and acquitted of stealing a banana worth 25p after he chose to have a full crown court trial.

Lady Hallett said: “The jury is seen by some as an unfair and time-consuming process, a ‘luxury’, placing an expensive burden on the state, albeit it operates in only 1 per cent or 2 per cent of criminal cases.

“If you are a prolific shoplifter accused of stealing sweets from Tesco, should you have the right to demand jury trial at a cost of approximately £20,000?”

The senior judge, who is vice-president of the Court of Appeal’s criminal division, cited the high-profile case of Vicky Pryce, who was convicted of taking her husband’s speeding points.

The original jury was discharged after asking questions which the judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, said showed a “fundamental deficit in understanding”.

But Lady Hallett concluded that, on balance, the jury system was worth retaining, despite its flaws.

Donal Lawler, secretary of the Criminal Bar Association and a barrister at 187 Fleet Street Chambers, said theft was included in the “either way” category because of its potential impact on someone’s reputation.

“It’s the act of doing something dishonest rather than its actual value. The reputational impact of that is enormous,” he said.

He added that he had seen numerous cases where a defendant had chosen to go to crown court on a relatively minor charge and had been cleared.

“We’ve all seen quite a few of those – you initially think ‘that looks absurd’, but when you drill down you see the human effect a conviction would have.”

“I dealt with someone who had a bit of a chequered past but had made big changes, had places sorted out at college.

“They were accused of something relatively minor, but chose to go to Crown Court … and things came out over that longer process which utterly exonerated them,” he said.